In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial where Mitchell may have the chance to represent himself. One judge dissented. Mitchell was found guilty of serious crimes and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and additional years for conspiracy. He felt he was not being properly defended by his attorney and had asked multiple times to have his attorney replaced. Eventually, he requested to represent himself, expressing dissatisfaction with his legal counsel. The court found that Mitchell’s request to represent himself was clear and that he understood the risks of doing so. The court concluded that he had the constitutional right to self-representation, which had been violated when his request was denied. Although the court addressed other issues raised in Mitchell’s appeal, the main reason for the reversal was the denial of his right to represent himself. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court acted correctly by not allowing Mitchell to self-represent due to his disruptive behavior during the trial process. In summary, the decision allows Mitchell another opportunity to conduct his own defense, considering that he properly requested this right before the trial proceedings were fully underway.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1045, Joshua Paul Nosak appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, driving without a driver's license, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered that the case be sent back to fix a mistake in the sentencing. One judge disagreed with the decision. Nosak was found guilty of serious crimes after a jury trial. The jury decided he was guilty of first-degree manslaughter for driving while impaired and also found him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident after someone died. He was sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison for the manslaughter charge and received additional time and fines for the other offenses. Nosak's appeal raised several arguments. First, he believed that the court should not have allowed a specific charge against him because the underlying misdemeanor wasn't strong enough to support the manslaughter charge. However, the court found that this didn't really hurt his case because the jury found him guilty on other grounds. Second, Nosak argued that the court allowed bad evidence to be presented, which shouldn't have been allowed. The court found that he didn't object to this during the trial, so they couldn’t rule on it unless it was obviously wrong and affected his rights, which they determined it did not. Third, he claimed that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. However, the court said that because the evidence against him was very strong, he could not show that he was harmed by any mistakes made by his attorney. The fourth point was about correcting mistakes in the court's decision regarding his punishment. The court accepted that there were errors in the sentencing order and decided to send the case back to fix them. Finally, Nosak argued that the many errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. But the court found that there were no individual mistakes that were serious enough to change the trial's outcome. In conclusion, the decision meant that while Nosak's convictions were upheld, the court would correct the sentencing mistakes before finalizing the case. One judge disagreed with this conclusion, but the others agreed with the majority opinion.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1043, Ricky Carlos Colbert appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but ordered the case to be sent back to correct the judgment and sentence to show the correct crime of assault and battery on a police officer. One judge dissented. Colbert was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after he was identified during a video of the crime. He raised several arguments for his appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in jury instructions, introduction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccuracies in his sentence, and cumulative errors. The court carefully examined each argument. 1. For the first point, the court decided that Colbert's lawyer did not provide ineffective assistance. They felt his strategy in the case was acceptable, even if it didn't work out as planned. The lawyer's decision to dispute Colbert's identity rather than claiming he committed a lesser crime was valid, according to the court. 2. For the second point about not instructing the jury on a lesser offense, the court found that Colbert did not ask for this instruction, so they only looked for obvious errors (plain error). They concluded there was no plain error. 3. Regarding evidence, the court said the video of the crime was properly introduced, as there were no objections during the trial. 4. On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no serious wrongdoing from the prosecutors. 5. The fifth point involved many mistakes in the judgment, which required a remand to correct records to indicate the correct conviction. 6. Lastly, the court found there were no individual errors that required relief, so cumulative error claims were not valid. Overall, the court concluded to send the case back for corrections but allowed the original convictions to stand. Colbert’s request for a hearing about his lawyer’s effectiveness was also denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-568, Gary Patrick Ciancio, Jr. appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Ciancio was found guilty of hurting a child, identified as C.D. He was accused of causing burns on C.D.’s hand with a cigarette lighter and hitting C.D. with a belt, leading to severe bruises. The jury sentenced him to 25 years in prison along with a fine. Ciancio argued that his trial was not fair because the court allowed evidence that showed his bad character and past actions that were unrelated to the charges. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during his trial because the lawyer did not challenge these pieces of evidence. During the trial, C.D. testified that Ciancio was responsible for his injuries and described different ways Ciancio had punished him in the past. Ciancio denied causing the injuries, saying they were accidental. His defense included claims that C.D. got hurt while playing. The court allowed many pieces of evidence that painted Ciancio in a negative light but were not directly related to the specific charges against him. Ciancio's appeals were based on these issues, saying they made his trial unfair. The court noted that while there was a lot of damaging evidence presented against Ciancio, the key facts still proved he was guilty. However, the blend of improper evidence and the lack of objection from Ciancio's lawyer led the court to feel that the sentence might have been unfairly harsh. The court decided that because of the ineffective assistance from his lawyer, Ciancio's sentencing should be reduced from 25 years to 15 years. In conclusion, Ciancio’s conviction was upheld, but his time in prison was reduced due to problems with how his trial was handled.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-480, Huyen Ai Thi Tran appealed his conviction for perjury. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for correcting the fine but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. Ms. Tran was found guilty of perjury by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with three years to be served. Ms. Tran raised several issues in her appeal. She claimed that evidence from other crimes unfairly influenced the jury, which made her trial unfair. She argued that the trial court mentioned she was in custody for an unrelated matter and that her co-defendant talked about other crimes during the trial. However, the court found these issues did not have significant impact. She also argued that the prosecutor asked questions that brought up evidence about other crimes without proper warning, but the court decided these errors didn’t affect the outcome. Ms. Tran argued that her right to remain silent was violated when the jury heard that she had refused to answer questions in a previous case. The court noted that the trial judge intervened and instructed the jury to ignore that testimony. Another point Ms. Tran made was about her lawyer's failure to challenge a juror who was a police officer. Ms. Tran’s lawyer did not pursue this challenge, but the court found that it was not a serious issue since the juror was not working in law enforcement at the time of the trial. Ms. Tran then pointed out that the fine noted in the final judgment was different from what the court initially stated during sentencing. The court agreed to correct this mistake. Lastly, Ms. Tran suggested that all these issues combined created a harmful effect on her case. However, the court concluded that any significant errors were not enough to change the trial’s outcome due to strong evidence against her. The final decision required the correction of the fine in the records, but the conviction for perjury was largely upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1079, Dale Anthony Chambers appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations made by Chambers's twelve-year-old stepdaughter against him, claiming he had sexually abused her while her mother was away. The girl testified that the abuse began in early 2009 and included inappropriate sexual acts and exposure to adult content. She ultimately revealed the abuse to her mother after first denying it, fearing punishment. Chambers's appeal centered around several arguments, particularly that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. This was due to the admission of evidence from a sexual assault examination report that included statements from a forensic interviewer who did not testify at trial. The court found that this violated Chambers's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront witnesses. The court assessed whether this error affected Chambers's substantial rights and the fairness of his trial. They noted that the admission of hearsay evidence was significant and that it likely influenced the jury's verdict, as the report was specifically requested during deliberations. Since the physical evidence was not strong, the judge emphasized that the case heavily relied on the victim's testimony alone. In conclusion, the court ruled that the improper admission of evidence was not harmless and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial for Chambers.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-644, Jones appealed his conviction for kidnapping, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacate the fine related to the drug paraphernalia charge. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in which he faced several charges, including kidnapping and drug offenses. The jury sentenced him to thirty years for the kidnapping and twenty years for the cocaine possession, with the drug paraphernalia charge resulting in one year and a $1,000 fine. In his appeal, Jones raised multiple issues, including whether the jury was properly instructed, if his trial was fair, and if his lawyer was effective. He specifically challenged how the trial was conducted regarding the instructions given to the jury and the evidence allowed by the court. The court found that the jury had been adequately instructed and that any mistakes made in the instructions did not affect the final outcome of the trial. While it agreed that the jury was improperly instructed about determining punishment in a bifurcated trial for the misdemeanor charge, it noted that all of his sentences ran concurrently, which reduced the impact of that error. Jones also argued that introducing evidence of his other crimes was unfair, but the court decided that this evidence was relevant and crucial for the jury to understand the context of the case. As for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court ruled that Jones failed to demonstrate how his lawyer's performance was deficient or how it affected the outcome of his trial. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the charges against him and found that his sentences were appropriate, rejecting his claim that they were excessive. Finally, when considering if the combined errors denied him a fair trial, the court decided that the errors did not undermine his conviction, except for vacating the fine of $1,000 for the drug paraphernalia charge. Overall, the court affirmed the convictions for kidnapping and possession of cocaine but made one adjustment regarding the fine for the drug paraphernalia charge due to a procedural issue.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-546, Myron Emanuel Louie appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Myron Louie was originally charged with a more serious crime, but he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. However, after pleading guilty, he wanted to change his mind and withdraw his plea. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison, even after he expressed his desire to withdraw the plea. Louie then filed a motion to officially withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied his request during a hearing. During the appeal, Louie claimed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected how well he was represented. He argued that this made it hard for him to get fair legal help, especially during the hearing to withdraw his plea. The judges explained that a lawyer must represent their client fully and not have any conflicts that could hurt the client’s case. The court agreed that the original lawyer did not handle the motion to withdraw effectively and that this lack of proper representation meant Louie's appeal needed to be looked at again with a new lawyer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. They ordered the case to go back to the original court to appoint a new attorney. The judges also stated that if the new attorney managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, this would be considered a successful outcome in this appeal. But if the motion to withdraw was denied again, all the decisions and details of that hearing would need to be sent back to the appellate court for review. In conclusion, the case was sent back to be re-evaluated with a new lawyer, making it a measurement of fairness and justice for Louie.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1060, Carlos David Oliver appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal in part and grant it in part. The court reversed and dismissed two of the charges: assault with a dangerous weapon and resisting arrest. The dissenting opinion was noted but did not specify details.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-615, Lawrence Grant Stewart appealed his conviction for several crimes involving child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count due to double punishment but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented. Lawrence Grant Stewart was found guilty by a jury for multiple crimes, including lewd molestation, rape by instrumentation, and child sexual abuse. The jury recommended long prison sentences for each of the counts, leading to a total of several decades in prison. Stewart's appeal raised several issues regarding his trial and convictions. One point of appeal was that Stewart did not get effective help from his lawyer during the trial. He argued that his lawyer shared too much personal information with the jury, which he believed should not have been revealed. However, the court found that the lawyer's decisions were made to help Stewart and did not seriously harm his chances in the case. Stewart also claimed that he received multiple sentences for the same behavior, which he believed violated his rights. The court agreed in part, particularly regarding one count of child sexual abuse, and decided to reverse that count and dismiss it. However, they found that separate punishments for the other crimes were appropriate since they involved different actions. Lastly, Stewart argued that the sentences he received should not be served one after the other (consecutively), but the court decided the original judge made the right choice in this matter. In summary, while some of Stewart's appeal points were accepted and one count was reversed, most of his convictions remained upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-525, Sparks appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, and Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Counts 2 and 3 but reversed and remanded Count 1, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding Count 1. The case involved Nathan David Sparks, who was tried and found guilty in Osage County. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison for Second Degree Murder, along with a fine for delivering a controlled substance and a year in county jail for improperly handling a dead body. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendations. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether there was enough evidence to support a conviction for Second Degree Murder. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Sparks gave methamphetamine to a woman who later died from it, claiming they had a close relationship and that he knew about her health issues. Sparks argued that the evidence did not strongly support the idea that his actions were extremely dangerous. The court reviewed prior cases and determined that not every case of delivering drugs resulting in death is automatically Second Degree Murder. They explained that for a murder charge to stick, the actions must show a clear disregard for life. They found that in Sparks' case, while he knew the victim had health problems, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his actions were dangerously reckless enough to warrant a murder conviction. Each of Sparks' other issues was also reviewed. They found some testimony was not directly related to the case, but since the evidence for Counts 2 and 3 was strong, it did not change the outcome. They determined that there was no misconduct during the trial and that Sparks had adequate legal representation. In summary, the court upheld Sparks' convictions for the drug delivery and body removal but did not find strong enough evidence for the murder charge, leading to its dismissal. One judge disagreed, believing the evidence was sufficient to uphold the murder charge due to Sparks' knowledge of the victim's health issues.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-998, Frye appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child, Procurement of Child for Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Frye's convictions and sentences but ordered the removal of a $1,000 fine that was imposed without jury authorization. One judge dissented regarding the trial court's handling of voir dire questioning.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1110, Twilia Renae Wise appealed her conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented, believing that the case should not be remanded for a new trial without further review.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-794, Allen Eugene Bratcher appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to thirty years, although they affirmed his conviction. One judge dissented from the decision to reduce the sentence, stating that there was no error in how the prosecutor conducted the trial. Bratcher was found guilty in Garfield County and originally sentenced to seventy years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including concerns about his sentence being too harsh and the conduct of the prosecutor. The court found that while some of the prosecutor's statements were improper, the conviction did not need to be reversed. The judges determined that the long sentence shocked their sense of justice, especially given the circumstances of the case and Bratcher's lack of prior accusations. They reviewed the prosecutor's comments, especially those appealing to the jury's sympathy, and decided that these remarks contributed to the excessive original sentence. The court also considered Bratcher's claims regarding his lawyer's performance, but they ruled that the trial lawyer's decisions were part of their strategy. Ultimately, while the court affirmed Bratcher's conviction, they thought the sentence should be reduced to thirty years instead of seventy. The decision allowed the judges to agree on many points but showed differences regarding what the final sentence should be.